I’ve heard it said that conservative churches believe in the inherent evil in humanity and liberal churches believe in the inherent good of humanity.
Having been raised in the more conservative wing of the church, I’d mostly sided with the humanity is inherently evil camp. I look at the evil and destruction in the world, and it seems natural to me that we had to start out with some sort of evil, or how do we get this way?
A thought hit me today, though, and I know it isn’t incredibly original… but what if being created in the image of God maintains humanity’s inherent goodness while at the same time coming into a fallen world gives us inherent evil as well? In effect, I’m asking what if both camps are basically right at the same time, but the understanding must include both sides for an honest picture of humanity.
Spencer Burke and I spend a fair amount of time together doing stuff for THEOOZE. He’s talked a lot lately about an “Opt-in versus opt-out” view of salvation. He describes himself as a universalist who believes in hell. Honestly, I’m not quite with him in all of his theology, but Spence certainly has a way of making me think long and hard about certain issues.
If I can take the discussion out of the heaven/hell realm for my own personal sanity, I would have to say at least one type of salvation must be “opt-in.” As much of the apostle Paul’s writings focus on transformation of our lives, I have a hard time believing this transformation is meant to be passive on our part (meaning we’re in it whether we know it or choose it or not). From my perspective, we are to be very active in this.
To me, this all goes back to that question of inherently good versus evil. If we have any inherent evil, even if that comes with inherent goodness, than our salvation from evil will be “opt-in.” We choose to follow the way which will transform us more and more into the pure image we were originally intended to be.
“I’ve heard it said that conservative churches believe in the inherent evil in humanity and liberal churches believe in the inherent good of humanity.”
I’ve never known liberals (and I am one) to not acknowledge that persons are not always the best that they could be.
Could this be approached from another angle maybe? What would change if we said that liberals did acknowledge the “evil” in humans but attributed primary impetus to different sources?
ie – If you ask “Why is someone poor?” conservative would be more prone to say “because they’re lazy” (personal responsibility) while liberals would say “because the system is stacked against them” (opportunity). I think there is import from this to the “salvation” question, but I’m not prepared to say what it is yet.
And then ther’s that issue of evolutionary development…
landon
February 12th, 2005
Hello,
I am writing in response to your article and I believe also that we started out evil. I am a Catholic and I practice my religon many times less than I want too. I am writing a persuasive piece on if mankind is born good or evil. My English teacher got the question from the book the Lord of the Flies and A Seperate Peace. Both of which we just finished reading over the summer. I am very interested in your point of view and I think it would help me a great deal with my writing. If you could get back to me that would be greatly appreciated.
Thankyou.
Jennifer
September 20th, 2005
consolidate bills
audiogram recounts components,psychologically congratulatory accelerated?Pict rudiment turtles mortgage loan http://www.rarehomes.net/mortgage-loan.html
consolidate bills
November 28th, 2005